Cont: Deeper than primes - Continuation 2

[Nonpareil]

Hi doronshadmi

I think the thread was directed more toward the abrahamic idea of god, but in relation to your post 'we cannot know God's purpose in relation to the unbounded because we are restricted' implies that in the restriction any conceived purpose there might be is subject to the same restrictions as that which conceives them...therefore we can only know our part in relation to the purpose and in relation to our restricted position - we cannot know the whole purpose.

To be sure, we do not need to know the whole purpose of God [the unbounded] - and I understand the thread question was directed toward the abrahamic idea of god (itself a part of the restriction we are involved within) and even that being the case, that idea of god is just one of many, and from what I have come across in my own studies, there are far vaster ideas of god than those presented through the abrahamic organised religions.

My understanding is that if there is any 'purpose of god' in relation to consciousness and this universe, the options are rather limited as to what can be achieved in said universe, although time-wise...there seem to be any amount of that in order to do the achieving...

Looking at your diagram it appears that the 'unbounded' has purpose in relation to the path(s) from one point (unbounded unity) to another
( Unbounded multiplicity ) ...

God (Unbounded Unity) is not restricted to awareness about it, where any awareness that is based only on belief, is restricted only to awareness about God, which is not direct awareness of God.


Unbounded Unity can't be described in terms of its expressions, where 'point' is a form of an expression.

By directly being aware of God, and by not losing it during God's ever developed multiplicity\diversity phenomena, one actually knows God's purpose(s).

Oh my god.

Navigator and doronshadmi in the same thread, throwing nonsensical word salad back and forth at one another and pretending that they understand.

It's... it's beautiful.

 

[ynot]

Science is the best framework to actually know God and God's purpose(s).

You can only use science as a framework(method) to actually know God and God's purpose(s) if you first use science as a framework (method) to know that God and God's actually exist.

Any framework that is based only on belief fails to actually know God and God's purpose(s).

God and God's only exist as beliefs so their "purposes" can only be believed.

 

[Navigator]

I basically saying that Unity is the cause of multiplicity.

Unity is the cause of large numbers of things? Yeah I see that in your diagram...the unity presumably is the unbounded, which in turn caused the fragmenting process creating 'things'.

You are saying the unbounded='god' and that everything derives from that.

Now how does this idea fit with this universe in terms of 'gods purpose'?

 

[Navigator]

Science is the best framework to actually know God and God's purpose(s).

Any framework that is based only on belief fails to actually know God and God's purpose(s).

Right - sorry I missed that bit...you are saying (or I think you are saying) that in relation to this universe, science is the means in which (through the use of) 'gods purpose' can be ascertained.

Belief of itself is of no particular value as a method of ascertaining 'gods purpose' (or anything else really...it is just belief.)

eta

I think belief does have a role in the process - but only impermanent belief rather than static (dogmatic) belief.

 

[doronshadmi]

Also please look at the following diagram:

In this diagram Unbounded Unity is represented by a line, whether it is vibrating, or not.

The vibrations are the multiple aspect of the line, yet the line is the cause of the vibrations, but not vise versa.

God and God's only exist as beliefs so their "purposes" can only be believed.

This is the awareness of vibrations that misses the awareness of the line as their cause.

 

[Jodie]

Looks like a busted can of biscuits.

 

[doronshadmi]

Getting back to God's purpose, I don't think there is one, at least not one that involves us specifically. I'm going with the assumption here that the creator is absolutely nothing like us, we might just be a tiny cog in the real organism of interest, for example let's say it's planet Earth.

We think of our selves as self aware and as something unique in the universe. What if we are extremely limited in what we can perceive and have no clue that there is much more to reality than we can observe. That wouldn't make us particularly advanced. We might be self aware in a limited way but we wouldn't/couldn't perceive the total environment.

Think of the small amount of time that we've existed compared to the age of the Earth, compared to everything in the cosmos. Evidently everything worked just fine without us before we got here.

Being aware of God (Unbounded Unity) is (by analogy) simply being aware of the single string during its vibrations.

Being small (let's say, a single person) or big (an entire universe) vibrations are both derived form the same cause (the single string, in this analogy).

 

[doronshadmi]

Looks like a busted can of biscuits.

Try to also know it as vibrations of a single string.

 

[ynot]

Looks like a busted can of biscuits.

If you stare at a busted can of biscuits long enough, and project belief of the existence and purpose of a god into the busted can of biscuits, then you will see (eventually, if you believe hard enough) a god and the purpose of that god. . . . It's true!

ETA - Apparently also works just as well for a single piece of vibrating string.

Pretty pictures of mystic/spiritualistic/theistic projected “proof” merely prove how silly some people are.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Also please look at the following diagram:

This is the awareness of vibrations that misses the awareness of the line as their cause.

I have trouble distinguishing the diagram from a rationalist fantasy ungrounded in any empirical observation, and therefore relating only to subjective speculation. What am I missing?

 

[ynot]

I have trouble distinguishing the diagram from a rationalist fantasy ungrounded in any empirical observation, and therefore relating only to subjective speculation. What am I missing?

Belief.

 

[Navigator]

Getting back to God's purpose, I don't think there is one, at least not one that involves us specifically. I'm going with the assumption here that the creator is absolutely nothing like us, we might just be a tiny cog in the real organism of interest, for example let's say it's planet Earth.

We think of our selves as self aware and as something unique in the universe. What if we are extremely limited in what we can perceive and have no clue that there is much more to reality than we can observe. That wouldn't make us particularly advanced. We might be self aware in a limited way but we wouldn't/couldn't perceive the total environment.

Think of the small amount of time that we've existed compared to the age of the Earth, compared to everything in the cosmos. Evidently everything worked just fine without us before we got here.

I think that in relation to what doronshadmi is suggesting that you are correct.

"What importance are we - the human animal closely related to the ape - in relation to any 'purpose of god'?"

I don't think we are something unique in the universe - I know that some do think this because there is no evidence to the contrary, but realistically we are not likely the only planet in the entire universe which is life bearing...statistically there are probably millions of such planets or even billions.

The problem with that of course is the size of the universe and the fact that it appears to be expanding so the likelihood of beings from different planets meeting each other is limited to the galaxy we are in - assuming ways around the problem haven't been discovered assuming such ways are even there to be discovered.

On top of that, so what even if it is the case? Each are separated and basically alone and even altogether what does our and their existence matter in relation to any 'purpose of god' in relation to the universe?

The answer is in the evident. Everything was 'working out fine' without 'us' and if for whatever reason we become extinct, that will still be the case. It is evident that the planet is able to produce more of the same (biological beings) so there is no saying that something else even better than humans won't evolve.

But what does 'even better' actually mean? To me it means 'forms able to produce things which can get us into the greater neighborhood of space' which of course requires intelligence, self awareness etc at least on par with human beings at present...what else is there to do? [purpose]

We know that dinosaurs were the prevalent species at one time. Those lizards were around a lot longer than we have been. What 'purpose' would they have been to 'god'?

Well, what purpose have they been for us? What have we been able to achieve because they once existed?

See?

It seems things are built upon things, but if god is consciousness within form, then purpose is evident by that.

What is consciousness through the human being doing? Well it is doing a lot of stuff - most of it seems to be doing without regard for any particular overall purpose, some of it is doing with overall purpose.

Mostly it seems to be learning and adapting and utilizing...breeding of course...and competing as well as cooperating...

If there is a god and it has a purpose, then as insignificant in relation to the inconceivably huge universe as that might appear to the individual, to all human beings or in relation all the life on the planet or the planet itself or the galaxy the planet is within, the fact of the matter is we exist and in that we find purpose or we don't.

If we simply *shrug* and say "we are insignificant" that attitude is highly unlikely to support anything collectively purposeful and more likely to protest the pointlessness of 'it all'.

 

[ynot]

The answer is in the evident. Everything was 'working out fine' without 'us' and if for whatever reason we become extinct, that will still be the case. It is evident that the planet is able to produce more of the same (biological beings) so there is no saying that something else even better than humans won't evolve.

But what does 'even better' actually mean? To me it means 'forms able to produce things which can get us into the greater neighborhood of space' which of course requires intelligence, self awareness etc at least on par with human beings at present...what else is there to do? [purpose]

So why call it "GOD"? Why not call it "science"?

 

[Thor 2]

Oh my god.

Navigator and doronshadmi in the same thread, throwing nonsensical word salad back and forth at one another and pretending that they understand.

It's... it's beautiful.

I don't know about beautiful, my head is spinning. I think Ill just nod and pretend I am hip with it all.

And that diagram by doronshadmi wow! Sure I understand it, it sheds so much light on the subject of God's purpose.

 

[Nonpareil]

I don't know about beautiful, my head is spinning. I think Ill just nod and pretend I am hip with it all.

There's nothing to be hip with. Doronshadmi does this kind of thing all the time in the Deeper Than Primes thread. He's allergic to properly-defined terms, you see, so his posts tend to be utterly incoherent word salad.

 

[doronshadmi]

I have trouble distinguishing the diagram from a rationalist fantasy ungrounded in any empirical observation, and therefore relating only to subjective speculation. What am I missing?

Careful empirical observation is done by first preparing the conditions in order to isolate the researched (laboratory optimal conditions) and if the empirical results can be replicated independently of specific observers (the results are independent of the wishful thinking of specific observers) we claim that we have found objective empirical results.

Empirical results must not be restricted to any specific region in order to be considered as valid.

The following diagram

doing exactly this, it discovers that isolated researched regions are derived from a foundation that is not restricted by any specific region (whether these restrictions are done by careful prepared conditions (laboratory optimal conditions) or any subjective interpretation of the results).

Moreover, the single sting model enables to demonstrate how Rationalism (contradiction;tautology) and Empiricism (fermions and bosons) are actually derived from a common foundation (the single string).

 

[Thor 2]

There's nothing to be hip with. Doronshadmi does this kind of thing all the time in the Deeper Than Primes thread. He's allergic to properly-defined terms, you see, so his posts tend to be utterly incoherent word salad.

Thanks Nonpareil, that is a relief. I was beginning to think I was seriously deficient in the comprehension department.

 

[Thor 2]

Careful empirical observation is done by first preparing the conditions in order to isolate the researched (laboratory optimal conditions) and if the empirical results can be replicated independently of specific observers (the results are independent of the wishful thinking of specific observers) we claim that we have found objective empirical results.

Empirical results must not be restricted to any specific region in order to be considered as valid.

The following diagram

[qimg]http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3929/15309487328_d8023ed9f0_c.jpg/[/qimg]

doing exactly this, it discovers that isolated researched regions are derived from a foundation that is not restricted by any specific region (whether these restrictions are done by careful prepared conditions (laboratory optimal conditions) or any subjective interpretation of the results).

Moreover, the single sting model enables to demonstrate how Rationalism (contradiction;tautology) and Empiricism (fermions and bosons) are actually derived from a common foundation (the single string).

Yes I might drizzle some vinaigrette on that.

Do you have something comprehensive to submit addressing the OP?

 

[abaddon]

Thanks Nonpareil, that is a relief. I was beginning to think I was seriously deficient in the comprehension department.

You should read the "Deeper than Primes" thread. It's pretty eye-watering.

 

[Thor 2]

You should read the "Deeper than Primes" thread. It's pretty eye-watering.

Yes I had a look over it then felt my bowels start to loosen up so had to quit.